Publishers Upset Over Apple's Opt-Out Terms for Inclusion in iOS 9 News App

[SlCKB0Y]

Anyone can access RSS feeds right? Apple is basically saying that they are going to go ahead and deliver the provider's content to untold millions for free? How exactly is this hurting the news providers?

It doesn't matter if YOU can't see how it hurts because YOU aren't the copyright holder.

 

[MH01]

From the free advertising that drives millions of more views to your website.

I doubt apple will design the news app to allow user to click through to the website.

And no, most publishers do not put in links inside the article to link to their own content , this annoys people . And this can be disabled anyway. When users arrive to a website, where are countless modules for related content, trending content, tagged content etc. direct links In your content in amateur hour, used only when needed, when you have bad taxonomy of your data.

 

[MH01]

I'm not sure I understand your logic here. This is like complaining that Google shouldn't show snippets of your webpage on a search because it takes away from people going to your website. The fact is, people wouldn't even know about your website if they hadn't seen it by going through Google. I don't frequent many news sites, but I will use the News app. I GUARANTEE YOU, I will end up frequenting some new news site due to it's exposure I experience on Apple's News app. I also can guarantee you that I'm not the only one and I'm not in the minority. People complaining are not looking at the big picture. There are plenty of people and the news sites will only benefit from this exposure.

Did you just compare a news aggregator based on content you control via RSS to google search?

Sorry I don't understand your logic.

 

[DocStone]

By the time I got to this there is over 150 posts. The only issue I have with this is advertising. I get that RSS is public and we really want our content out there but if Apple is using my free content and putting ads up and making money due to my awesome content that draws 10's and 20's of people - I have an issue with that. Why should Apple make money off my content? Seems a bit shady. If they want to add my content without ads, no problem at all with that.

 

[MH01]

I got to page 2 and there seems to be a lot of confusion as to why publishers may be annoyed at this very ambiguous email.

Yes they put the feeds up. They know this.

Yep similar to google reader, it indexes them and makes it available.
But google never sent out an email telling publishers they were agreeing to random arbitrary terms in return for their content getting indexed.

Especially when the wording of such terms indicate that the publisher may have to pay apple in the result of a legal claim against apple and the publisher should a situation ever arise.
That's the key difference that many seem to be missing and would understandably have publishers a bit miffed or confused!
Apple seems to be the only indexing service applying terms to the publisher for having their content indexed by a service.

I believe that the email was written by someone in legal and it's likely just not presented in the most understandable way. They're probably not saying "if we both get sued then you'll have to pay Apple" even though that's how the email reads.

I'm no expert on US contract law, but an agreement such as this one taken literally wouldn't be enforceable in any western court I would imagine!

Otherwise (as I hope someone between page 3 and now pointed out!) I could send each one of you a PM saying "I'm launching a new web scraping service that will look at all of your MacRumors Forum profile pages and index your personal website listed within it. I will link to your personal website on my new app.
Every time the link to your website gets clicked on my app, you agree to pay me £100 unless you opt out by replying no to this PM".

Or "if you put pornographic imagery on your profile page and a lawsuit/claim arises naming both of us as parties, I will look to reclaim all of my legal costs from you. I will use some of the best and most expensive lawyers in the US, and you will have to indemnify all of my legal fees".

An exaggerated example I know and not enforceable but is similar to how Apple's email when read literally, which is why I think Apple's email is not worded in the best possible way and has caused confusion and a lot of hot hair.

On another note though:

The email also got sent to big publications such as BBC News, WSJ and many others which I wouldn't personally categorize as "bloggers" for their main news content....

Thank you. Well thought out and summarised.

 

[MH01]

By the time I got to this there is over 150 posts. The only issue I have with this is advertising. I get that RSS is public and we really want our content out there but if Apple is using my free content and putting ads up and making money due to my awesome content that draws 10's and 20's of people - I have an issue with that. Why should Apple make money off my content? Seems a bit shady. If they want to add my content without ads, no problem at all with that.

If you join thier iAds platform, Apple will give you 70%.

If you do not join, I assume they keep 100%. Sounds like a bit of incentive to join iAds, otherwise they will money out of it, while giving you publicity.

 

[Trius]

It doesn't matter if YOU can't see how it hurts because YOU aren't the copyright holder.

Oh ok, thanks for putting me in my place. I thought this was a discussion forum.

I doubt apple will design the news app to allow user to click through to the website.

And no, most publishers do not put in links inside the article to link to their own content , this annoys people . And this can be disabled anyway. When users arrive to a website, where are countless modules for related content, trending content, tagged content etc. direct links In your content in amateur hour, used only when needed, when you have bad taxonomy of your data.

I'd say this is a case where links would be needed, don't you? I know I would be adding them to my feed. The lack of perspective on this ever-changing age of technology baffles me. As a news provider, I would be looking at this as a HUGE opportunity in improving market visibility. The smart providers will find a way to benefit from this and leave all of the whining complainers behind. It's as simple as that.

 

[MH01]

Oh ok, thanks for putting me in my place. I thought this was a discussion forum.



I'd say this is a case where links would be needed, don't you? I know I would be adding them to my feed. The lack of perspective on this ever-changing age of technology baffles me. As a news provider, I would be looking at this as a HUGE opportunity in improving market visibility. The smart providers will find a way to benefit from this and leave all of the whining complainers behind. It's as simple as that.

I'm sure if someone has the time, they will look into the T&Cs of this service and see if external links are allowed.

Putting constant links in your articles is very poor editorial practice. Any decent news agency has a cms and related content etc

 

[flyinmac]

They shouldn't be putting content in their RSS feed they don't have the right to distribute. This is one of the reasons apple puts the legal onus back on publishers, because clearly publishers are dumb.

Obviously you failed to read...

If the blogger has legitimately been granted explicit limited license to reproduce said content on their own server, then they are doing nothing wrong.

That limited license may not transfer to Apple who has just decided as a 3rd party to illegally violate copyright laws and reproduce said content through their own private distribution system without anyone's explicit consent.

Providing a RSS feed of your own content hosted on your own service / server for others to read, does not make the content public domain.

Others cannot legally come along and repackage your content into their own service without your explicit consent.

Apple is violating copyright laws. And they will get called on it.

Have a little read over the various pages on this site:

http://www.feedforall.com/rss2html....owledgebase-template.htm&GUID=a310&MAXITEMS=1

Several of the links on the left side navigation bar on that page discuss aspects of the issue as well.

RSS does not make content public domain. You may not like to believe it. But it is still protected by copyright laws.

 

[Trius]

Did you just compare a news aggregator based on content you control via RSS to google search?

Sorry I don't understand your logic.

Yes, in the sense that Apple is somehow 'stealing' views from customers that would otherwise go straight to the provider's content without a middleman. Is this not the argument, that Apple would be taking views for itself and profiting? That customers will, in turn, not go to the provider's website? Probably not the best example but the point is, Apple is opening the door to millions of people to see the provider's RSS feed. Millions of people that would have probably never gone to the provider's website in the first place.

 

[flyinmac]

Wrong.

The Copyright Debate & RSS
RSS is commonly defined as really simple syndication. So, this means that any material contained in a feed is available for syndication, right? Well no, not exactly. It means that the content contained in an RSS feed is in a format that is syndication friendly, if the copyright holder allows for syndication. Offering a feed for syndication does not in fact grant any legal rights to anyone to reuse the feeds content beyond what the Copyright laws grant as Fair Use.

http://www.feedforall.com/rss-copyright-debate.htm

What Is Fair Use?


In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an illegal infringement.

Funny, you type faster than me. Linking same source

Oh well, it's there

 

[flyinmac]

Yes, in the sense that Apple is somehow 'stealing' views from customers that would otherwise go straight to the provider's content without a middleman. Is this not the argument, that Apple would be taking views for itself and profiting? That customers will, in turn, not go to the provider's website? Probably not the best example but the point is, Apple is opening the door to millions of people to see the provider's RSS feed. Millions of people that would have probably never gone to the provider's website in the first place.

I'm not buying any Dr. Dre albums either. So he should appreciate any boot leg copies someone gives me. Otherwise I'd have never heard him.

 

[MH01]

MR has missed a lot of issues in relation to this. Hence some people are confused what the problem is.

From an actual news site explaining it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33151325

Though linked in the MR article , this is a much better summary. I assume many did not link through and just read the MR summary.

 

[MH01]

I'm not buying any Dr. Dre albums either. So he should appreciate any boot leg copies someone gives me. Otherwise I'd have never heard him.

Though in this case , the guy passing on the boot leg copies is not liable to be sued cause he send an email, and not having received a reply, meant everyone agreed to him being the middle man.

 

[Trius]

I'm not buying any Dr. Dre albums either. So he should appreciate any boot leg copies someone gives me. Otherwise I'd have never heard him.

I would agree. I also would not know about Dr. Dre if I relied solely on purchased content. Gaining a new fan is much more valuable than the ten bucks he probably would not have spent on the album.

 

[Tork]

I got to page 2 and there seems to be a lot of confusion as to why publishers may be annoyed at this very ambiguous email.

Yes they put the feeds up. They know this.

Yep similar to google reader, it indexes them and makes it available.
But google never sent out an email telling publishers they were agreeing to random arbitrary terms in return for their content getting indexed.

Especially when the wording of such terms indicate that the publisher may have to pay apple in the result of a legal claim against apple and the publisher should a situation ever arise.
That's the key difference that many seem to be missing and would understandably have publishers a bit miffed or confused!
Apple seems to be the only indexing service applying terms to the publisher for having their content indexed by a service.

I believe that the email was written by someone in legal and it's likely just not presented in the most understandable way. They're probably not saying "if we both get sued then you'll have to pay Apple" even though that's how the email reads.

That is what they are saying, and they should pay Apple. Say someone posts something libelous and is sued with Apple included on the lawsuit. Or someone plagiarizes something, and is sued with Apple included on the lawsuit. Why should Apple have to pay anything if it is also included in the lawsuit for showing the content to people using RSS as intended? Plus, even per the BBC article, "According to Graham Hann, the head of technology, media and communications at the law firm Taylor Wessing, the terms of the deal are broadly in line with industry standards." It's all reasonable (and necessary) stuff. Don't have an RSS feed if you don't want to be a part of it.

 

[MH01]

I would agree. I also would not know about Dr. Dre if I relied solely on purchased content. Gaining a new fan is much more valuable than the ten bucks he probably would not have spent on the album.

Radio is a good example of giving an artist exposure . Maybe a good analogy to the news apps?

Though if you were and artist, would it worry you if the radio station made money playing your song from ads before and after , and you got nothing? And also of the station played your song, and got sued, you would be liable?

 

[ginkobiloba]

That is what they are saying, and they should pay Apple. Say someone posts something libelous and is sued with Apple included on the lawsuit. Or someone plagiarizes something, and is sued with Apple included on the lawsuit. Why should Apple have to pay anything if it is also included in the lawsuit for showing the content to people using RSS as intended? Plus, even per the BBC article, "According to Graham Hann, the head of technology, media and communications at the law firm Taylor Wessing, the terms of the deal are broadly in line with industry standards." It's all reasonable (and necessary) stuff. Don't have an RSS feed if you don't want to be a part of it.

So, you missed the part where she is also saying : "
However, the optout approach is very unusual and I don't see how the notice could form a binding contract without a positive reply.
Apple clearly wants to launch with as much content as possible and has taken this risk-based approach. Some publishers may object and even threaten to sue. "

 

[Simoleon547]

There's nothing legally or ethically wrong with this. Rss feeds exist so random people can subscribe to them and post them on their own trashy websites. These people are just irritated because they expected rss feeds would be a way to expand their advertising by having people find out about their site or see an article summary/headline on a relevant or slapped-together site and then the viewer would start visiting the original site directly. Since Apple put together something that's often a better presentation of their content than their decent sites, they're now going to lose out on ad revenue because those "wait 5 seconds" ads (which we never consented to viewing) will probably be gone.
Besides that, if someone sends you a notice in the mail, you can't claim you never received it, because legally, if it's in your mailbox it is legally considered to be received. This only applies to physical mail as far as I know but I would expect the argument would win out that it's equivocal. Especially since you have no excuse not to get the email. You post your email address for contact on your site for anything related to your business, you are therefore giving the impression you will be actively checking it and that you are responsible for the proper functioning and distribution of that server.

Point-blank: a publisher that complains about this is dishonest, unethical and if they claim to have much of a legal precedent for their opposition they're full of it

 

[mfvisuals]

And as a publisher. How do I make money out of this to continue making more content and paying wages?

Put revenue generating ads in your RSS feed.

 

[aslucher24]

That's exactly what I was thinking. They're using the RSS feeds provided by the news sites.

Exactly!!! I'm sorry but this is bull. And it's not on Apple. The content creators are using a public RSS feed to release their articles, and they want more choice?? How about, be thankful the largest company, by value, is taking interest in your feeds. Why don't they have any positive reactions? Why not just stop using a public standard? I loved Rockmelt, and that was nothing but the same. An aggregator searching RSS feeds for articles. These content creators need to get off their high horse and stop using RSS if they don't like it. But all I would imagine them saying to that is, "how am I supposed to be heard then?" It's like why complain about free publicity, especially when it's done in a very well manner

 

[ginkobiloba]

There's nothing legally or ethically wrong with this. Rss feeds exist so random people can subscribe to them and post them on their own trashy websites. These people are just irritated because they expected rss feeds would be a way to expand their advertising by having people find out about their site on a slapped-together site and then the viewer would start visiting the original site directly. Since Apple put together something that's often a better presentation of their content than their decent sites, they're now going to lose out on ad revenue because those "wait 5 seconds" ads (which we never consented to viewing) will probably be gone.
Besides that, if someone sends you a notice in the mail, you can't claim you never received it, because legally, if it's in your mailbox it is legally considered to be received. This only applies to physical mail as far as I know but I would expect the argument would win out that it's equivocal. Especially since you have no excuse not to get the email. You post your email address for contact on your site for anything related to your business, you are therefore giving the impression you will be actively checking it and that you are responsible for the proper functioning and distribution of that server.

Point-blank: a publisher that complains about this is dishonest, unethical and if they claim to have much of a legal precedent for their opposition they're full of it

Do you have an email address ?
Because i'm going to send you one saying that, unless you respond NO to my email, you're legally bound to send me 4000 dollars each month.

I'm serious.

 

[aslucher24]

There's nothing legally or ethically wrong with this. Rss feeds exist so random people can subscribe to them and post them on their own trashy websites. These people are just irritated because they expected rss feeds would be a way to expand their advertising by having people find out about their site on a slapped-together site and then the viewer would start visiting the original site directly. Since Apple put together something that's often a better presentation of their content than their decent sites, they're now going to lose out on ad revenue because those "wait 5 seconds" ads (which we never consented to viewing) will probably be gone.
Besides that, if someone sends you a notice in the mail, you can't claim you never received it, because legally, if it's in your mailbox it is legally considered to be received. This only applies to physical mail as far as I know but I would expect the argument would win out that it's equivocal. Especially since you have no excuse not to get the email. You post your email address for contact on your site for anything related to your business, you are therefore giving the impression you will be actively checking it and that you are responsible for the proper functioning and distribution of that server.

Point-blank: a publisher that complains about this is dishonest, unethical and if they claim to have much of a legal precedent for their opposition they're full of it

Just love this

 

[MH01]

There's nothing legally or ethically wrong with this. Rss feeds exist so random people can subscribe to them and post them on their own trashy websites. These people are just irritated because they expected rss feeds would be a way to expand their advertising by having people find out about their site on a slapped-together site and then the viewer would start visiting the original site directly. Since Apple put together something that's often a better presentation of their content than their descent sites, they're now going to lose out on ad revenue because those "wait 5 seconds" ads (which we never consented to viewing) will probably be gone.
Besides that, if someone sends you a notice in the mail, you can't claim you never reseived it, because legally, if it's in your mailbox it is legally considered to be recieved. This only applies to physical mail as far as I know but I would expect the argument would win out that it's equivocal. Especially since you have no excuse not to get the email. You post your email address for contact on your site for anything related to your business, you are therefore giving the impression you will be actively checking it and that you are responsible for the proper functioning and distribution of that server.

Point-blank: a publisher that complains about this is dishonest, unethical and if they claim to have much of a legal precedent for their opposition they're full of it

Minor edge case for you. Apple has the incorrect email for your company, or sends it to a public email address, or sends to to an individual who left the company, send it to an individual who moved sections, is considered spam, someone at apple misspells your email address.... Etc etc.

Just cause an email was sent, does not mean it arrived to the correct receptient for whatever reason. Hence the opt out is strange in this case.

 

[lchlch]

I doubt apple will design the news app to allow user to click through to the website.

And no, most publishers do not put in links inside the article to link to their own content , this annoys people . And this can be disabled anyway. When users arrive to a website, where are countless modules for related content, trending content, tagged content etc. direct links In your content in amateur hour, used only when needed, when you have bad taxonomy of your data.

You are correct to assume that most authors do not put a link at the bottom of their article. However it is typical for an RSS feed to include a link. The link will often be created by computer programs automatically; added to the article: and than published to an RSS feed.

But the issue at hand is not the RSS feeds. It is the indemnity clause. I think the clause is reasonable. If Apple got sued over your content it is reasonable for you to take part of the responsibility; in this case to indemnify apple.